CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

RobertMfromLI · Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 114 Location: West Islip, NY

Hey all,

I keep seeing elsewhere things that indicate people's choice for screen sizes should be widescreen. For instance, AVS says "Now that HD is so prevalent and we are on the verge of all TV's going digital, widescreen is really the default choice."

I tend to disagree, as to me, a Home Theater should be able to provide full enjoyment for all types of media. While many game boxes now do 16:9, various games are not suited to it (for instance top/bottom split two player racing/action games); and in addition, there are a ton of DVD and even Blu-Ray content out there that are still (and will always be) 4:3; and of course, much of the TV content out there is still (and will probably always be) 4:3 (unless they re-film the stuff - or we all stop watching the old stuff).

So... if I have my thoughts on this correct, using a 4:3 screen which is the width one wants for displaying a 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie; will gain a full sized screen for 4:3 instead of cropping the sides. Inotherwords, since going to 4:3 on a 16:9 screen requires side masking, and since going to 16:9 on a 4:3 screen requires top and bottom masking, then since most (all?) PJs natively throw 4:3, why not have the largest screen for every format?

Unless of course, all one ever shows is 16:9 stuff. Or some people dont mind stretching 4:3 content (I for one cant stand doing that - everything looks too fat).

Other than lack of room for a 4:3 screen that would be the same width as a 16:9 screen, are there reasons I am missing?

Rob

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:34 pm Post subject:

You have it right.

If you do the 4:3 inside the 16:9 window you are using a tiny bit of the tube face ( like then you had to use your video player in a window )

While some people prefer this ( Why I will never understand ) you will get a much brighter, more detailed picture if you run a full tube face 4:3 image and just use constant width. That's where your 16:9 and 2.35:1 content will be displayed less tall.

When I run my Ampro here I run a 4:3 screen 10 feet wide and just let 16:9 and 2.35:1 fall where they may. Why would I go through the trouble of making 4:3 fit in the middle of my 16:9 picture so I can have a postage stamp sized image ( for that I have a 27" TV )

Go big, stay at home.

akajester · Joined: 09 Jul 2008 Posts: 934 Location: Wisconsin

I run a 16x9 screen. I either watch hdtv ota which is all 16x9, or I run movies that all fit the screen width nicely. All the gaming I do on the xbox 360 fits 16x9. Works great for me. I understand your point about the 4x3 though, I just never watch any 4x3 content.

imprez25 · Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 70

I have always suggested people go with the screen that matches what the majority of the content they watch. So, if you tend to watch a majority of TV programs, or video/films recorded in 4:3, go with a 4:3 screen. This way your experience is maximized.

Personally, I run a 2.35 screen and then scale the other AR's down from there. But I like the look of the super wide movies and want to show them off more than the 16:9 or 4:3 content. To me showing a 2.35 movie on a 4:3 screen just looks odd and less impactful than on a true 2.35 screen.

RobertMfromLI · Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 114 Location: West Islip, NY

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

RobertMfromLI · Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 114 Location: West Islip, NY

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject:

Kiev Savoie · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 432

One thing i have always been hesitant about is running the risk of 4:3 wear in a 16:9 setup. given a choice i would rather risk the opposite, that is 16:9 wear in a 4:3 setup so that it can't affect that HD picture I worked so hard to get. And correct me if i'm wrong Analog, but doesn't that "postage size image" also concentrate the electron beam on the tube face rather than spreading it out causing excessive heat in a smaller area resulting in accelerated wear?

imprez25 · Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 70

On my 2.35:1 screen 4:3 content is still 46 inches tall and 61.5 inches wide, hardly 27" tv size. It looks appropriate when comapred to the other content.

Lets say for example, i'm watching tv (rarely hapens on my projector, but lets just say I am), let's say NBC for Hero's. When it cuts to commercial or when the nightly news comes on the 16:9 content of Hero's is larger than the McDonalds commercial or the local news...As it should be.

If I maximized everything for a 4:3 screen, both the commercial and the nightly news would be larger than the acutal video I wanted to watch. Doesn't do much for effect.

Now, of course if I want to watch a 4:3 content video/film. Yeah a 4:3 screen is best, but you loose that "effect" for the other content.

Really the only true way to Maximize for all content is CIA, and that requies a lot of masking and scaling. Something I don't really want to get involved in....right now. Smile

As I said above, maximize for your use and be happy with it, don't worry about what other people do and just enjoy your set up.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:45 pm Post subject:

RobertMfromLI · Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 114 Location: West Islip, NY

imprez25 · Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 70

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:06 pm Post subject:

Well now you're back into scalers.

I'm talking about as broadcast. From what I see over here from OTA ATSC.

I'm glad to see you like to preserve the artistic integrity of the commercial director. He/she would be proud. Laughing

Then along the same vain, would you scale the 16:9 commercials that are in the 4:3 window to fill your 16:9 screen. Or would you compromise and scale the 16:9 image up to 4:3 full screen? Wink

zaphod · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2002 Location: Cloverdale

Phil (no longer on the forum and over to the digital-dark side) and I had long long discussions about this a couple of years back. i'm firmly in the 4:3 screen camp and he thought i had dingo's kidneys for brains. or something like that Very Happy

aside from 4:3 material, i have lots of 16:9 material that is true letterboxed. some on DVD, some on LD, some on VHS. and none of it available anamorphically, some of it not available at all except on VHS or LD.

the problem with the true letterbox is that on a screen that is not 4:3 i end up with both pillarbox and letterbox and my image is tiny tiny on the screen and the tube. so i go with a 4:3 screen. that's what works for me.

the beef i have with my blu-ray player is that it insists on using 16:9 if HDMI is enabled. as soon as you turn on HDMI output in the setup then all outputs HDMI, S-video, component and composite are forced to 16:9

so when i view a true letterbox DVD (such as much of my Hitchcock collection) i get it pillarboxed and letterboxed. really annoying. i play some sizing games with my scaler, but it's never quite the same.

the helpline at Samdung told me that HD is defined as 16:9 and HDMI is HD so turning on HDMI forced 16:9 for all material even 4:3 material.

does anyone know if the new Oppo player does this foolishness?

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject:

zaphod · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2002 Location: Cloverdale

well yes, it's a helpline, that's what you're supposed to get - steaming piles of poo Smile

i firmly believe that the purpose of 1st level helpline support is to give an answer that enables them to close the ticket. not answer the question or solve the problem but just close the ticket.

all success metrics on helplines are based on the number of tickets processed, the number closed and the time to closure. customer satisfaction is rarely factored in, and if so, it's a lesser factor than the other hard metrics that are easier to track and measure.

but back to the OPPO - can you set it to output 4:3 letterbox over HDMI?

RobertMfromLI · Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 114 Location: West Islip, NY

zaphod · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2002 Location: Cloverdale

well, there are settings to show 16:9 or 4:3 (either P&S or LB) but they are disabled when you turn on HDMI. sigh.

RobertMfromLI · Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 114 Location: West Islip, NY

And yes, the HD specs do support 4:3 content